The M1 Abrams should be updated with the M833 or M900

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
,
222

image
data pulled from statshark for the last 7 months.

The armor is pretty poor for where it’s at. 30mms can penetrate the massive turret ring, that is not variable thickness like it should be, from extreme distances. It also fights tanks 0.3BR above it running 3BM60 (a literal top tier round) while fighting ammo at its own BR designed post initial production designed to counter better versions of the T-series, Leopard 2s and the M1 itself while being limited to a M735 and M774 (a pro production and the original production rounds. It doesn’t even get M833 that came out 2 years later and was designed as a stop gap against emerging threats specifically for the 105mm gun and was the actual combat round for the M1). It’s not even a glass cannon as it doesn’t get good ammo and the only rebuttal has been “but it’s faster and reloads faster”. Cool, so it’s a MBT forced to be a light tank with poor ammo and is going to die before the reload can get off because first shot is what matters. Reload rate means nada if the round isn’t worth anything. /s Does that mean the Bradley is OP because it reloads faster?

Finally, and to be quite frank, you haven’t run the M1 so what’s your experience or expertise for the discussion coming from outside from playing a lot of Russia? I’ve personally ran through the US tech tree within the last 6 months and currently acing the T-90A out. It’s night and day easier for Russian tankers.

1 Like
223

Heads up, that M1 highlight isn’t accurate. I was checking it against rounds last night and it was ignoring about half the tank on what can/cannot be penned. It’s better to hover around the tank.

224

Judging by the comparison of our performance I do seem to know how most fights play out. Do you?

More and more i have feeling you play Abrams in a way where you just roll to the cap like you own the place, fire and then just wait in the middle of the street waiting for absolution from god.

Which might work in T-80UD but wont work in Abrams.

225

That’s exactly what I told you a couple of days ago.
I said that the Armour Analysis tool was not working properly and that it showed DM23 could not penetrate the M1 Abrams.

You then replied to me saying: ‘‘That’s nonsense! Of course DM23 can penetrate the Abrams! Why would you claim otherwise??’’.

Fast forward to now, and here you are telling me that the Armour Analysis tool isn’t working properly…

Facepalm GIFs - Find & Share on GIPHY

Regardless, I use L26 to simulate the areas which DM23 could penetrate.

226

Idk, did you get downtiered or uptiered a lot? For me, I’m almost constantly getting max uptier matches no matter what BR or nation I play. Either way, does that negate the fact most fights are chosen by the first shot at that BR?

I actually try to flank a lot but that doesn’t help much when I’m getting things like “Advance to the Rhine” all the time while in it.

227

Yes, but the problem is the context in which this M1 Abrams is situated. When the M1 entered service, it most likely used M735 ammunition, which was soon replaced by the M744, and this in turn was later replaced by the M833 (we went through those three rounds in 5 years). The problem would arise with the M900, since although the M1 can fire that ammunition (apparently even the M60A1 and A3 could in the Gulf War), by the time the M900 was released, the M1 would have been replaced by the IPM1 and M1A1 in front-line units.

What I mean is that, for balance purposes, the developers need to place the tank model in a specific time period, and it seems the M1 in the game is set around 1981 or 1982. Therefore, in my opinion, the ammunition situation for the 105mm Abrams seems more or less correct. The only thing that bothers me a bit is that ammunition like the M833 (there are similar cases in other countries) ends up being just a stopgap round until a better one is released, since there are hardly any tanks that use it as their primary ammunition.

The change I would make is a complete overhaul of the Battlegrounds so that the M1 doesn’t encounter tanks like the T-90, but at the same time, the maps would need improvement, both in removing fixed firing points and in their size. Additionally, for example, I would give the Soviets an initial model of the T-72B (the one with five layers of metal and air spaces) to occupy the Battleground that the T-90A would vacate upon moving up.

228

Did you read what was said or just trying to argue? I said that it’s more accurate to hover over it as the highlight function isn’t accurate… It’s like how the bottom in the center getting hit can cause damage from spalling as it goes through the engine wall or hitting the sides of the bottom next to the tracks will throw spall across the entire tank. You’re using it discuss about “armor profile” when it’s missing a lot of spots where it can also punch through and gets used in matches and didn’t mention how the highlight is missing plenty of spots.

Why would you use L26 v DM23 when discussing DM23? They have different stats.

229

M774 was the new production round when it entered service. If we were to go with the “most likely used at introduction” round as the best it gets, we should see downgrades to every nation’s tanks for their best APFSDS. Idk if the M60 could fire it as it was specifically the M68A1 gun that could withstands the M900 pressure. There was the Super M60 prototype that got it but no production variants did.

And fair, we’ve been asking for larger maps/new game modes but the DEVs shot that down in a livestream a couple months back (they effectively said we’re too stupid to adapt to them). I’d love a more historical gamemode as that’s a lot easier to balance than just throwing things in places due to “player statistics” as Gaijin does now. Then again, players would have to learn a little on the doctrine of the tanks and that’s a whole other ballgame.

But, unfortunately, that still leaves the M1 fighting tanks running rounds to directly counter it still in game. That’s why I put this up because I know an actual fix won’t ever come XD

230

Hold up!

IIRC there is pressure issue with breeches below certain serial number, ie. 105mm manufactured up until certain date cant fire M900 unless they want to suffer catastrophic failure.

231

In a way, the difference between the M744 and the M833 is small enough that no Battle Rating change was necessary. The problem is that the developers prefer to leave everything as it is, for whatever reason. The same thing happens with the 105mm DM33 and DM63; the difference is so extremely marginal that all tanks equipped with the DM33 could be given the DM63 as their best round, but the developers will never do it because they prefer to maintain this fantasy of balance. By the way, I have no proof, but I’d bet anything that the DM63’s penetration rating isn’t accurate, since it’s impossible for the improvement to be so extremely marginal.

232

Same, but even the in these matches the M1 still performs okay (relative to other 10.7s in a similar uptiered game).

Players, especially average/below average, perceive it that way. However fights usually get decided by positioning long before anything else. The M1 is incredible for taking agressive positions and is also one of the best brawlers at 10.7 for the more experienced players

1 Like
233

Mix. I wasnt really keeping track.

Doesnt change a thing about how M1 needs to be played. The round is low pen to begin with so one shouldnt expect to snipe with it like one would do with i dunno, challenger 1, and one should always go for weakspots.

And how often do you get drop onto someone with first shot only for it to fail against ERA, fuel tank, or preferably both?

Yes preferably you fire in a way where follow up shot shouldnt be neccesary. But the game is far from ideal reality.

You might not have time to go for proper weakspot so you go for breech/barrel instead.

Your first shell might vaporize.

There might be second enemy just waiting for you to fire.

Enemy might suddenly stop in middle of the field for no GOD DAMN REASON SO YOU LEAD TOO MUCH.

Your shot might only take out a gunner and nothing else.

You and your enemy might bounce.

Theres no scenario where fast reload is downside. Its always objectively an upside.

I challenge you to find a single person with 100% of all of his kills being done with single shot.

Hold sight lines instead of trying to face enemies head on.

234

Yes, I saw that. In fact, at first I read that only the M68A1 cannon could fire that ammunition, but later I read that the M68s from a certain production number could also.

235

That’s one of the things I don’t like about the game. The fact that, simply due to the devs’ laziness in not doing things properly, a meta ends up being created that only benefits vehicles with certain characteristics (fast tanks, tanks that use APHE, or those that can deploy CAS early in the match). These are the things that competent devs would review to improve the situation and balance it through the necessary changes, whether it’s better maps, better damage models, etc.

1 Like
236

To be fair, you do well. Your stats are well above the average for the tank, with a 1.55KD v 1.11 lifetime of the Abrams (it’s even worse if you compare recently with a 1.03 avg for the last few months), and you’re in the top 4% of players. Beeschurger has been slamming kids with a 3.43 KD and is top 3% of players. I mean hell, even I do well a 1.50 KD with most of the games being non-aced but I’m also top 4% and that doesn’t negate the general player base is struggling with the tank. The reason I bring that up is, for example, I find the Russian tanks far easier to play as I’ve got a 1.92 KD in the T-80B while the lifetime KD for the vehicle is 1.02 and last 7 months stats say it has a 1.08 KD (which has increased remarkably this month with a 1.2KD).

I mean… argurably? I find myself brawling in the T-series far more as they can take a hit while I get either one hit KO or get totally immobilized and unable to fire back in the M1 as a round will take the turret controls and engine in one go.

1 Like
237

I personally think the M1 should get the M774 as the Tier I and M833 as the Tier IV (the M735 is just painfully anemic for that BR). The M900 was just because the Abrams has historically been the worst performing MBT at that BR for once they started adding vehicles past that for the general player base and would at least give it something for what it fights.

So, from what I’ve found while looking into the different ammunitions in game for fun, DM63 and DM53 are the same round but DM63 got a more temperature stable propellent to give it similar performance in different conditions. As for what WT does, I don’t think it would do anything to add it other than just add lines of code to name it differently.

238

If it gets downtiered, it does at least have the ability to eat what gets thrown at it as that’s what it was built around (iirc, it was originally to stop 3BM22 until they could get the long turret design built). However, even then its fighting tanks that get MANGO as the tier I unlock, a round directly designed to counter it. The armor/ammunition balance is unarguably off for the M1 for where it’s at now.

A good chunk with the M735 and then I usually get punished for it by either one tapped or immobilized with loss of turret control, because Gaijin added the hydraulic system controls to the Abrams but not the T-series, when I get shot in return. And that’s the thing, when compared to other tanks at the BR, usually the M1 is one tapped entirely or is unable to do anything because their damage model includes more systems and doesn’t have the armor to really survive being hit. Also, I am laughing about the enemy stopping in the middle of the field because I see it isn’t just me seeing this a lot recently XD And yes, there are times the reload can be better but that’s if you survive being hit, which the M1 almost 99% of the time won’t even from the front. The argument isn’t that a reload can’t be useful but that the reload is far from the deciding factor in the fight. It’s usually only good for a finishing shot before moving on.

I mean… kinda of hard to when your team is dropping like flies. Seriously, idk what’s up lately but the 1/2 death and gone players are bad atm.

239

Iyeah it depends on a lot of factors. I prefer the Abrams due to a combination of reload, mobility and gun handling. However I can also see why/if someone is more comfortable in a brawl with a tank that has armor.

240

It’s not a bad tank in the right hands (as we’re all great examples of it tbh). I do enjoy the shoot and scoot tactic with it, which it does well at. I just know that’s about all it can get away with. At least with the T-series, as long as I keep the LFP down, I know it can usually take a beating if I have to expose myself down a lane to either get the initiative or get caught in a bad spot.

1 Like
241

Do I really need to play every nation to top tier, in order to determine that in fact the Bug reports for the M1 that have been accepted would probably be fairly beneficial if they were implemented.

Are you going to compensate me for time spent?

Is playing a leopard going to somehow make me figure out how to make the M1’s invulnerable to overpressure aside from having gaijin action various reports to correct the internal model?

Are small caliber AP threats and CE systems irrelevant what about;
Autocannon AP(e.g. M971 / 2A42’s AP )
Autocannon APFSDS (30mm Mk 258 /2A42 APFSDS)
High performance cannon AP (3BM42 / M900)
and CE threats (3OF26, 9M112 & 9M120)

And besides for both the M1 & M10 the UFP is invulnerable, LFP and Turret cheeks is penetrable so according to the protection analyses(unspecified range).

Are you seriously only basing this claim off acceleration with no empirical testing? and besides where is the cutoff for a significant quantality; 3 seconds, 5 seconds? In a void sure but mobility is hardly only constrained by Acceleration. for example I wouldn’t generically that the M1128 has greater mobility than the M1 Abrams just because it has the higher top speed. But it can prove decisive in some edge cases, let alone would one consider that the minimum turning radius of wheeled vs tracked (Pivot mode, never ever) is accounted for.

For example how do said metrics show themselves in a timeline of various power positions on a maps These stats don’t help turn these metrics into workable insights, that one can directly leverage to improve.

Not the claim, is that; evidently as shown M774 is not suitable and a replacement is necessary thus replacement with a more performant round should occur, the question therein is that is M833 sufficient or is the more powerful M900(A1) required.

Further if such an addition would also necessitate a reload rate reduction (most likely from 12RPM > 10) in order to improve balance.

Remember the M1 is not autoloaded and both ammo availability and reload rate are a balancing tool in themselves, and reserved by Gaijin.

I personally think that the M68A1 & M256 both going to 12RPM was unneeded and only deployed due to the fact that none of the Bug reports were going to be fixed, in order to prevent the BR reduction the stats obviously dictated at the was required for balance.

Answering your concerns regarding spall liners, MBTs and Aircraft

However, we’re not satisfied with the current effectiveness of all M1 variants with a 120 mm gun, so we’re looking at other ways to improve them.

The first consideration is the addition of a new M829A3 shell which we’ve also seen requests and suggestions for. We’ve discussed this option, but the addition of this shell in comparison with the M829A2 will not enhance the Abrams capability against top-tier vehicles that are equipped with modern armor and built-in ERA systems. We’re still considering the possibility of adding the M829A3 shell, but as a first change, we’re going to increase the rate of fire of first-stage ammo from 6 to 5 seconds per shot on an Ace level crew, which’ll make the Abrams more effective against all opponents. This rate of fire is possible considering the size and weight of most shells for 105 mm guns are comparable to shells for a 120 mm gun. This is due to the fact that the 120 mm cartridge case is partially combustible, while the 105 mm case is metal. For example, a 105 mm shell with an M900 projectile has a length of 1003 mm and a weight of 18.5 kg, and a 120 mm M829A2 has a length of 982 mm and a weight of 20.3 kg.
[/quote]

Do any other vehicles have acknowledged bug reports relating to the effectiveness of the Turret ring, gun shield and Side skirts; at least outride the Ariete?

I’d agree; video evidence of a single event doesn’t really hold up to scrutiny does it, that why statistics are our friend, you just need to know how to use them properly.

Well, its clearly not otherwise evident in the video you have selected as an exemplar.

I just think they would have different problems, and as the topic is narrowly constrained to the M1 they aren’t directly relevant.

I didn’t know that nations play games, hmm might as well go see what the US thinks then. It’s most certainly not what is taken into account when balancing things, is it.

Because no newground is covered by your claims so there is no need to come up with groundbreaking reasoning.

Proof?

2 Likes